Main menu

You are here

A study in simple semantics: meaning of racist and racism

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2019-08-18 21:29

By Carolyn Yeager

LIKE ANTI-SEMITE (OR ANTISEMITE), THE WORD RACIST IS increasing in politically-charged usage. This bodes ill for maintaining our shrinking "European-white majority societies” that are now sprinkled lightly around the world. The following are some thoughts I had concerning what to understand and how to engage when you are so labeled.

Is there a difference between Racialism and Racism? – both are “beliefs” according to Wikipedia.

Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.

There is no explanation for why the distinction between the two words. Most dictionaries define the two terms as synonymous.

Merriam Webster defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities. Thus a racist would be a person who believes that race is the primary determinant of human traits. [In other words, innocent of superior-inferior connotations.]

However, a third meaning states that racism is “racial prejudice or discrimination.” Third meanings often convey the slang or popular current usage, irregardless of the historic, more traditional meaning. Some online dictionaries use that third meaning for their first meaning, which is why I chose to use M-W.

Merriam Webster writes that racism is a word of recent origin, not used before the 20th century. They go on to say that “Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes.” This is because they explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used.

In 1903, W. E. B. Du Bois, a black civil rights activist and Pan-Africanist, said that racialism is the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among races This is no doubt where the distinction between racialism and racism at Wikipedia came from. British-Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah summarized Du Bois's philosophical stance by writing that racialismis a value-neutral term andracismis a value-charged term.

Meaning of -ist

Let's now look at the meaning of the suffix -ist. It denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc. Examples: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist. Notice in all these cases, the person is a believer in, or a maker or user of that represented by the root word. A writer of dramas or novels; a maker of machines or apologies; a believer in realism or socialism. Thus a racist would be a believer in race or in race differences. That's all one can make out of it from the word itself.

Answers.com says that ist stands for “one who does.” This brings up the question of whether racist can be a proper word at all. Is it a naturally occurring word or an invented, created-for-a-purpose word? The ist in the words biologist or chemist wouldn't be considered as a suffix.If we take away ist from biologist, it would be biolog. That's not a word. Same with chemist. Technically, ist means what a person is. For example, if I were a biologist, I would study or practice biology. Similarly, rac is not a word. Adding ist (racist) means a person who studies race - or a person who practices race science or just believes in race. I believe in race and race-based differences, so I'm willing to be called a racist based on that definition.

Coined by the left

It does seem that racist is a coined word for the 21st century. Previously there was no purpose for the word so it didn't exist, even though feelings about race differences were greater and more pronounced in the past than now. But they were also accepted as natural and socially acceptable. Now it's politically purposeful to blame and shame with what may yet become the “word of the century.”

Here's a recent example of it's use in the current environment. Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is a homosexual trying to win over more black voters, who generally disapprove of homosexuality. Thus he is calling President Trump a 'racist' who is 'dividing America,' without any real evidence or defining the term. Most of the other Democrat candidates are doing the same.

But I don't think we have to accept it. We can remind our accusers of the true meaning of the word, it's actual content, whenever it's used against us. We can tell them they have to be more specific about what we have actually done or said, before they resort to labeling us in such a generalized way with a word of such questionable meaning. Every “crime” needs to be proved.

It's also important that we assert our authority over our language because it’s what we use to communicate ideas. It’s not a matter of going around proclaiming ourselves as racists, but defining the word properly when it’s used against us. We can also reject the popular notion that race difference is only skin color, or that if we acknowledge differences we are making value judgments. Differences found among racial groups can be observed by everyone and are backed by scientific studies that follow accepted protocols.

Race is a reality; racial differences are a part of that reality. We have every right, even duty, to acknowledge the real world. We deny that right to ourselves if we accept meanings for words in our common language that distort our common reality. It's shameful that our politicians do this! It's called Political Correctness, a tool used to take away your and my freedom, to emotionally enslave us.

So it's really important; it's not a small thing we can overlook. Therefore take a stand. Refuse to accept the words “racism” and “racist” unless they're used properly. State why. And by all means, don't use these words against your perceived enemies either, thinking you are somehow turning the tables on them. By doing so you are acknowledging the sentiment held within them, which then can be used against you. Better to find other words with which to express yourself.

Don't be a dope. Protect our language by insisting those who speak to you use precise language, or reject what they're saying if they don't.

Excellent article, thank you. But what is the solution? All U.S citizens only common interest is the ratified 1788 U.S. Constitution, and citizen's powers to correct goverment Officiles are written in two Articles of the ratified 1788 U.S. Constitution.

Hi Carolyn,
I was thinking about this all summer. From a usage point of view, there is constructive racialism working from benevolence, and coming with solutions in hand, versus malevolent racism that is a reactive death spiral. This is where Trump gets in trouble. He comes across as a malevolent racist. He says AOC has to go back, but Puerto Rico is owned by the yankee imperialist. She has no place to go. The only reason AOC (and Omar etc) is in Congress is because of imperialism and other vices.
Problems breed problem and solutions breed solutions.
If Trump said, let's get rid of Puerto Rico's debt and get rid of this empire, and then send her back to run it, that would be constructive. He doesn't do that. This is the difference between Trump and Hitler. Hitler would have a solution. Trump just agitates and incites. It's the same thing with the Muslim ban. Trump wanted a scene.
In this and many more ways, National Socialism is benevolent racialism, while America's history on race is a huge fail due to malevolence and racism.
In a masonic theocracy, the ruling scum wants the white dog fighting the black dog, while the (((house))) wins. E. Michael Jones book/interviews on Slaughter of the Cities explains how this is public policy. The WASP-Jew establishment brought the black sharecroppers into northern ethnic catholic communities to destroy them. Hitler would never have done that.
This framework of benevolence versus malevolence on race allows us to extricate National Socialism from the American experience, and shows how National Socialism is better on race than America's racist alternatives. National Socialism aims for a well-run farm, while white supremacy and democratic socialism want a zoo overrun with racial tension, grievance politics, and race wars. This also explains Hitler's popularity outside the Anglo-world, and why no one celebrates Lincoln or Trump.
Because National Socialism is benevolent on race, it has universal appeal. The malevolent masonic powers must demonize it, or else they will be fully and permanently discredited.

China is curently imperialising aftrica getting them hopelssly into debt they can never repay. Strangely the shreiking marxist western critics of all things white imperial are silent about Africa being helplessly subverted. Certainly the Africans got/get some benefits from colonialism, and that breeds more of them to flood Europe. A few academics in Europe have been nearly crucified for suggesting mild European Colonialism could be re-introduced to keep Africans more happy at home. Because they can't manage themselves. They prosper when supervised. It was SA white farmers that boosted the black poulation 900pc. Meanwhile we musnt forget "revolutionary" Globalism is just MORE IMPERIALISM. And it's just too easy to criticise "isms" these days. Its a game propagated by leftwing uni professors destroying our society.

Thank you, Carolyn, for a very informative, interesting and important article! I have one objection though:

"If we take away ist from biologist, it would be biolog. That's not a word."

Ha, ha! It actually is a word - in e.g. Swedish - and it means biologist. But I suppose you mean an English word, and that is correct, I believe, if it doesn't denote a biological log as opposed to perhaps an artificial log.

Many good news!
Looks like Britain is heading towards a hard Brexit! And mostly thanks to the greatest living Nationalist of our times, Mr Farage - well, alongside Trump! (I'm not forgetting BoJo either)

To be a member of the EU is a bad deal for the productive northern european countries: Most of its 27 member states are really third world countries. To put it into perspective: It's like if a sucessful businessman like Trump would start associating himself with paupers, homeless people, criminals and assorted losers; in no time he'd go bankrupt.

More good news is that Poland is formalising its demand for WW2 reparations from Germany: €850 billion! And Greece is demanding a more humble €300 bil. We can only hope that the brainwashed Germans will start waking up to all the hatred directed at them by their "european" brothers: In the polish media there is non-stop racist anti-german propaganda going on.
The Poles forget that 2/3 of their territory was stolen from Germany; why don't they ask the Ruskies for reparations since Russia stole a big chunck of Poland?
The rationale behind the reparation "idea" demanded by the Poles, Greeks, Blacks is the same: To blame others for their own incompetence.

The Brexit will be no less than the greatest nationalist victory in Europe since 1933! Next Dexit, Frexit, Swexit, Danxit...The EU must be completed destroyed!
Again thank you Mr Farage!
EU delenda est!

Gibson said: " ... The rationale behind the reparation "idea" demanded by the Poles, Greeks, Blacks is the same: To blame others for their own incompetence ... "
And my comment is: I certainly agree with the above statement as far as the Blacks goes and I know nothing about the Poles. However, as a Greek who knows my country's WWII history, I can assure you all if there is one European people who are 100% right to demand money from Germany, then this is the Greeks.
It is obvious at least to me that Gibson must have consistently skipped history class when s/he went to school, or s/he would have never made such an idiotic comment. I will advise her/him to go and research the subject, THEN come back and not merely apologize but profusely ask forgiveness for what s/he wrote.
As a small token of what the truth is, and why Greece should get reparations from Germany read this:
Germany attacked Greece on 6 April of 1941 and by the 27th Athens had fallen. Then the battle of Crete took place so by summer the majority of the country was under a very harsh military occupation by Bazi Germans. But the legitimacy of reparations has a lot more to do than the 4 yeas of being under the German military rule. During the German occupation, in addition to covering the cost of living for German troops, Greece as of 14.3.1942 was obliged to give the Germans a substantial monetary loan as part of which was used to finance the war in North Africa (!)
A Prominent Greek Economist, the late Xenophon Zolotas had revealed (newspaper "To Vima", June 2, 1991) that "even Hitler himself had indeed recognized the Third Reich loans from the Bank of Greece, and had also ordered the payment process to begin". Of course with Germany losing the war, the loan and its payment was conveniently forgotten by Germany as well as the allied powers who did not bring the matter forward when other similar issues were discussed and decided after the end of the war.
But Greece since the end of the war has not ceased to "remind" Germany of the pending loan. In 1964, a committee of lawyers was established, which held that the loan was Germany's contractual obligation, irrespectively of other remedies and war reparations.
The loan Greece was forced to make to Germany is a separate aspect apart from the general reparations our country is seeking for the looting of personal property and compensation for the destruction burned to the ground of many Greek villages. That is to say, the loan is neither compensation nor compensation.
Yes, it does pay to be a student of History and not skip class while at school.

Racism is another word for pattern recognition. It’s a survival skill we’ve been taught throughout our lives. Pattern recognition has allowed us to develop hunting skills and farming skills throughout our evolution. You’re taught from a very young age to recognize which object is different from the others. It’s the basis for all scientific study. But if you happen to recognize that people who look a certain way also behave in a certain way, pattern recognition is now evil and you’re called a racist.

No such thing as Racism anyway. Certainly not in terms of it being a political crime worthy of aggressive censure. Its Natural Territoriality from deep within our most ancient DNA , like when the dog chases the postman. The dog is not being racist.The dogs sentiment is YOU dont belong around here !Dog is doing pattern recognition, a vital survival skill in most animals.And we are blessed with that inclusion too. Its made us the greatest achieving species ever. SJWs sit at their keyboards feebly criminalising the natural behavours of everyone more successful- Raining Marxist expletives upon nearly everybody- which fails to disguise their toilet wall hate scribble as " socio-political discourse"- Such as men sitting on trains with their legs open feebly criminalised as "taking up too much space" Microaggressions. Nanoaggressions LOLSo racism is an inbuilt natural territoriality survival response that comes hard wired. Be mindful that strangers can be headhunters, pedophiles, cannibals and slavers -More slavery today than ever before.I am so glad that a storm of Marxist expletives can't alter our DNA- When will SJWs wake up to this simple biological fact ?

Isolated pools of people breeding longterm via ingroup preferences, produce distinct breeds of humans. Just like breeds of dogs & horses are distinct and produced by ingroup breeding. That's NOT a political crime. Nor is it a crime to acknowledge differences between breeds of people via our natural behaviour of pattern recognition.
To connote more explanatory meaning a better word would be breedism.
Some prefer poodles to Alsatians. Thats NOT a crime. Others prefer corgis to dachshunds. Still NO crime. Some men prefer Indian women. Others admire Chinese women. Not a crime is this. Its just natural likes and dislikes stemming from our natural inbuilt pattern recognition.
So breedism would be a more informative word. And it could never be a crime, no matter how loud the faux rage.

I believe the best approach when called a racist is to use the rote reply, In your opinion I'm a racist, you're just saying that because I'm white. Anti-racist is just a codeword for antiwhite.

Memorize this and don't engage. They use racist as a slur against anyone who is white and speaks up for white interests. This simple rejoinder will seed our word Antiwhite. Someday, I hope Antiwhite will have the same power to shame and shut up someone as Racist has now. This is the Bugster approach.

My answer to the word racism is that there is no such thing.
Unless we find a word for every other "discrimination" that humans do regardless of race.
We "discriminate" against ugly people, dumb people, boring people, short people, fat people etc...
And using the word "discrimination" is completly arbitrary and subjective.
Why dont we use just having a preference?
Where do these Leftists draw the line between "discrimination" and "having a preference"?
If for example a beautiful woman refuse dumb, ugly and short men and marry a tall, handsome and smart man, what is it? Discrimination or preference?
It was sure an "unjust or prejudicial treatment", that was based on phisical characteristics, wasnt it? Just like "racism".
And we could make up many other examples like this.

The failure worshipping Left just sit on their keyboards criminalising the natural behaviours of their more successful neighbours. But who are they to declare "criminal" normal behaviours innate in our DNA ? As you say, our natural pattern recognition is simply "discerning" what appeals to us. It cant be labelled a crime by failure oriented leftists who never made it to adulthood. They never mention the glaring opposite that people can have a fondness for people of foreign appearance say, Phillipino women. Wouldnt that be a race crime too ? Time has exposed the Lefts most laughable failure- and their mistaken policy of continuous activism has gone full circle with calls to reintroduce 1960s SEGRAGATION at US Universities. It was the left who angrily denounced segregation in the first place. meaning........ they are all just angry teenage contrarians.